Great Lakes Cities

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

How unbelievably tacky and utilitarian, unlike Steely's neighbor.

You do realize that poison eventually ends up in the lake?

When it comes to rental property, utilitarian makes sense

[TexasBoi]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think you are bringing in too many second/third tier cities into the discussion, and the reality is that most of those will never wind up being very relevant or important like the bigger Texas boomtowns. Just having people alone is not really enough.

Anyhow, I stick with my initial point that I think being on huge bodies of water may ultimately rescue the Great Lakes cities in the long run....

Would you actually call Houston landlocked? It actually does have a seaport and all. Houston isn't on the sea but it's 15 miles from Trinity Bay and 50 miles from the Gulf. Not nearly the same as Atlanta or Dallas.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by TexasBoi

Would you actually call Houston landlocked? It actually does have a seaport and all. Houston isn't on the sea but it's 15 miles from Trinity Bay and 50 miles from the Gulf. Not nearly the same as Atlanta or Dallas.

I was really discussing aesthetics. Cities like Cleveland, Toronto, Chicago, Milwaukee are built right on the water. The water was historically part of their economies (particularly Chicago and Milwaukee) and the core of these cities are located on Great Lakes shores.

Chicago and Milwaukee in particular are built up to the shore of Lake Michigan and celebrate it. Miles of apartment buildings and condo towers line the lakefront with lakefront views. You cannot separate the water from these cities’ identities and urban fabric.

I will let you speak for Houston, but everything I know about it suggests that while you can drive to the gulf coast from the city, it very much has a different kind of relationship with it, plus it doesn’t have its core overlooking a waterfront.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

As a property owner, I simply lay white gravel on all of my front yards. Spray with weed spray a few times per year, and you’re done. . And it actually looks pretty nice.

Have you ever heard of English ivy and hostas? Literally just plant them in the area you don't want to mow and watch them kill literally everything else off...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Have you ever heard of English ivy and hostas? Literally just plant them in the area you don't want to mow and watch them kill literally everything else off...

Just some woodchip mulch would do the job and look a thousand times better. I pray he doesn't own anything outside of Illinois.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

As a property owner, I simply lay white gravel on all of my front yards. Spray with weed spray a few times per year, and you’re done. . And it actually looks pretty nice.

That's just about as trashy as one can get.

[the urban politician]

^ Dude, this is not true. I only have this set up for 2-3 of my buildings, and if you saw it you would see how nice it looks. These are very tiny yards in a tight urban environment we are talking about, and often there are stairs running above them as well so these are not sites for kids to run around. The gravel looks like white rocks.

Considering the rents I'm getting I think the tenants are pretty happy.

[JManc]

Nothing looks shittier than white gravel with weeds poking through.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by JManc

Nothing looks shittier than white gravel with weeds poking through.

We spray it to prevent that.

Damn you guys are a tough crowd!

Also, I think many of you aren't thinking about the tight urban context of Chicago. The properties I'm talking about have very very small front yards which serve almost no purpose but as an entryway. The yard is behind a wrought iron gate and there are stairs going straight up. There is literally no space to do much anyhow. And mulch just isn't used much in a urban context, at least insofar as I've seen. I've seen ivy, grass, dirt, and white gravel. Some people even have a straight up concrete pad.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Dude, this is not true. I only have this set up for 2-3 of my buildings, and if you saw it you would see how nice it looks. These are very tiny yards in a tight urban environment we are talking about, and often there are stairs running above them as well so these are not sites for kids to run around. The gravel looks like white rocks.

Considering the rents I'm getting I think the tenants are pretty happy.

Ok, I haven't seen it, so I shouldn't have commented negatively.

Originally Posted by JManc

Nothing looks shittier than white gravel with weeds poking through.

nothing a little organo-phosphate can't cure...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Have you ever heard of English ivy and hostas? Literally just plant them in the area you don't want to mow and watch them kill literally everything else off...

You wanna come plant it at my Avondale project? I'm planning gravel there but I can pay you for your time if you have any interest...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

We spray it to prevent that.

Damn you guys are a tough crowd!

Also, I think many of you aren't thinking about the tight urban context of Chicago. The properties I'm talking about have very very small front yards which serve almost no purpose but as an entryway. The yard is behind a wrought iron gate and there are stairs going straight up. There is literally no space to do much anyhow. And mulch just isn't used much in a urban context, at least insofar as I've seen. I've seen ivy, grass, dirt, and white gravel. Some people even have a straight up concrete pad.

That black plastic that goes between the dirt and the rocks usually helps too. I plan using that stuff for a strip of landscaping along the side of our driveway that is always watching from too much shade and dampness. Some rocks and landscaping and then I'll grow Ivy up along the fence.

[Steely Dan]

i thought this article about the recent increase in cruise business on the great lakes was pretty interesting.

with two of the finest cities on the continent (chicago and toronto) along with a wide range of other interesting cities and destinations in between (hamilton, buffalo, cleveland, detroit, milwaukee, duluth, put-in-bay, mackinac island, isle royale, pictured rocks, georgian bay, door county, etc.), it's about time that cruising on the great lakes came back as a thing.

The next cruising hot spot is closer than you think: Get ready for more ships on the Great Lakes

Lori Rackl
Chicago Tribune

When it comes to hot new cruise destinations, the Great Lakes are living up to their name.

This veritable freshwater ocean — boasting 11,000 miles of shoreline, including islands — is attracting a lot of attention lately from cruise ship companies wanting alternatives for passengers who may be tired of pingponging around the Caribbean or who loathe to make a long flight across the ocean for a European voyage.

Great Lakes cruise operators are bulking up their brochures with additional trips this season, and lines that bailed on the area years ago are headed back. Industry experts expect companies that have never plied Great Lakes waters to come on board in the near future.

“I’m extremely excited about what’s happening,” said Dave Lorenz, chair of Cruise the Great Lakes, a new international partnership aimed at bringing more cruise passengers to the region. The initiative was announced last summer on Michigan’s Mackinac Island, a popular port of call on Great Lakes itineraries.

“The best thing about it is that these are not 4,000-passenger ships that destroy the experience for people who live there,” said Lorenz, vice president of Travel Michigan, the state’s tourism arm. “You look at places like Venice or Barcelona, and they’re actively fighting to keep out the huge cruise ships. In our case, you’re talking a couple hundred people per ship. They get to see this is a pretty stunningly beautiful area, and it opens the door for them to come back later on.”

full article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifes...409-story.html

[bnk]

Reading that I thought that there would be more shoreline than that on the Greatlakes including the islands because of the immensity of it all but I guess its probably as accurate as it can me.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes

...

The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water: 5,472 cubic miles (22,810 km3), or 6.0×1015 U.S. gallons, that is 6 quadrillion U.S gallons, (2.3×1016 liters). This is enough water to cover the 48 contiguous U.S. states to a uniform depth of 9.5 feet (2.9 m). Although the lakes contain a large percentage of the world's fresh water, the Great Lakes supply only a small portion of U.S. drinking water on a national basis.

The total surface area of the lakes is approximately 94,250 square miles (244,100 km2)—nearly the same size as the United Kingdom, and larger than the U.S. states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined.

The Great Lakes coast measures approximately 10,500 miles (16,900 km); however, the length of a coastline is impossible to measure exactly and is not a well-defined measure (see Coastline paradox). Of the total 10,500 miles (16,900 km) of shoreline, Canada borders approximately 5,200 miles (8,400 km), while the remaining 5,300 miles (8,500 km) are bordered by the United States. Michigan has the longest shoreline of the United States, bordering roughly 3,288 miles (5,292 km) of shoreline, ...Traversing the shoreline of all the lakes would cover a distance roughly equivalent to travelling half-way around the world at the equator.

...

[suburbanite]

I've lived in a condo overlooking the Toronto harbor for two years now and have definitely noticed an increase in cruise ship activity even in that short time. Last summer it felt like every other week I would see the same ship docked at the cruise terminal and gone the next day.

Ultimately their size will be limited by the canal dimensions which will hopefully avoid major environmental and community disruptions.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Ultimately their size will be limited by the canal dimensions which will hopefully avoid major environmental and community disruptions.

Oh for sure, this is niche market cruising for people looking for something off the beaten path, like those european river tours, not those mass market behemoths that ply the Caribbean or Mediterranean.

Great lakes cruise ships host passenger counts in the hundreds, not thousands, which is just as well. A place like mackinac island absorbing 300 cruise visitors is no big deal, but some of those big Caribbean boats hold over 4,000 passengers! That's a whole other level of nuisance tourism.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Oh for sure, this is niche market cruising for people looking for something off the beaten path, like those european river tours, not those mass market behemoths that ply the Caribbean or Mediterranean.

Great lakes cruise ships host passenger counts in the hundreds, not thousands, which is just as well. A place like mackinac island absorbing 300 cruise visitors is no big deal, but some of those big Caribbean boats hold over 4,000 passengers! That's a whole other level of nuisance tourism.

On vacation a couple weeks ago I saw a ship called MSC Bellissima, and it was effen gigantic! Per Wikipedia it can accommodate 4,500 but I think that's just passengers. I can't see anything like that on the Great Lakes...but it would be a cool sight!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

On vacation a couple weeks ago I saw a ship called MSC Bellissima, and it was effen gigantic! Per Wikipedia it can accommodate 4,500 but I think that's just passengers. I can't see anything like that on the Great Lakes...but it would be a cool sight!

nothing remotely close to that scale will ever sail on the great lakes because of the lock limitiations of the st. lawrence seaway and welland canal.

seawaymax ships are limited to 740' in length, 78' in beam, 26' in draft, and 113' in height above waterline. those MASSIVE cruise ships you see in the caribbean or the med FAR exceed those dimensions.

ships that do great lakes cruises are much more modest size. here are some examples of ships that have recently cruised on the great lakes.



source: http://www.boatnerd.com/trips/oldtrips/ccolumbus.htm



source: https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/c...eat-lakes.html



source: https://www.cruisemapper.com/ships/MS-Victory-I-1073



source: https://quirkycruise.com/cruise-line...seas-cruisesd/

[the urban politician]

^ Those are actually still pretty big.

Not as big as the massive ships that go out onto the Caribbean, of course, but larger than I expected.

I've never known much about the Great Lakes cruising industry. I think it's great that it's beginning to get traction. It will never be as big a thing as the main cruises (Alaska, Europe, Caribbean, etc) but I do think that it is an undervalued market that has a lot of room to grow.

One thing that would help is to offer interesting ports of call. That would entail having more pedestrian friendly activities in some of the Great Lakes cities. Mackinac Island, Chicago, and Toronto pretty much have this all locked down. I don't know so much about Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee, though.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ships that do great lakes cruise are much more modest size. here are some examples of ships that have recently cruised on the great lakes.




source: https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/c...eat-lakes.html

That's the one I always see docking here. apparently brought 6,000 passengers through the city last year.



from:https://www.portstoronto.com/cruise-ships.aspx